How many judgments cite Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt Ltd.?

244 judgments on BharatTax cite Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt Ltd. (226 ITR 625), spanning 2005 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 250, Section 54, Section 143(1), Section 40A(7), Section 139(1).

Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt Ltd.

226 ITR 625Supreme Court of India1997#346 most cited

What is Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt Ltd. authority for?

For income tax purposes, particularly under Section 22, the 'owner' is the person entitled to receive income in their own right, and formal registration of a sale deed is not mandatory. This 'real owner' principle also extends to claiming depreciation on capital assets, where the person bearing the risks and utilizing the asset is considered the owner.

244

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2005 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Podar Cement · 226 ITR 625 · Supreme Court · owner for tax purposes · Section 22 Income Tax Act · registration of sale deed · real owner concept · beneficial owner · depreciation allowance · Section 54

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 250 Section 54 Section 143(1)Section 40A(7)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144C(13)

Issues it is cited on

section 140a(1)section 215 section 207 section 2(43)section 262 section 209 section 2(1)section 208 section 210 section 115jaa section 140a minimum alternate tax

Judgments citing Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt Ltd.

M/s.V.R.Farms Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are dismissed

ITTA/272/2008HC Telangana28 Nov 2025

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

…to Explanation 1 after section 234B(1) and the Explanation after section 234C(1) were introduced to mitigate the hardship caused and were in that sense curative and clarificatory. Reliance was placed on Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt Ltd: 226 ITR 625 (SC) and CIT v. Gold Coin Health Food P Ltd: 304 ITR 308 (SC). 29. Mr Ajay Vohra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in some of the appeals, adopted the arguments of Mr Aggarwal and Mr Syali and made additional submissions. 30. Mr Vohra’s first submission is that MAT credit is equivalent to payment of tax in advance. A…

SMT . RAJANI SURENDRA ADAMANE ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), NAGPUR

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 103/NAG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrysmt. Rajani Surendra Ito, Ward-4(4), Nagpur Adamane, Plot No.30, Near Ghodke School Surendra Vs. Nagar, Hudkeshwar Road, Nagpur-440024. Pan: Alapa 9897 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 250Section 50CSection 54(2)Section 54F

…r the question in favour of the assessee and dismiss this appeal with cost quantified @ `10,000/-”. The Hon’ble High Court in the said judgment also relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. 7 Podar Cement (Pvt.) Ltd. [1997] 226 ITR 625, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court interpreted the theory of “constructive ownership” 8. Thus, considering to the above fact and the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and Delhi High Court, this Court is inclined to allow the claim of the Assessee in entirety to the tune of Rs.16,35,260/-, but subject to verification by the Ld. AO. Thus, the Ld. A…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, DELHI vs. ACB (INDIA) POWER LTD.

ITA/331/2025HC Delhi22 Aug 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

Section 14A

…ead into the main provision with effect from the time that the main provision came into force (See Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar (2001) 8 SCC 24 ;Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT [1997] 223 ITR 825 (SC) ; (1997) 1 SCC 352, CIT v. Podar Cement P. Ltd. [1997] 226 ITR 625 (SC) ; (1997) 5 SCC 482. But if it changes the law it is not presumed to be retrospective irrespective of the fact that the phrases used are 'it is declared' or 'for the removal of doubts'." (emphasis supplied) 7. The aforesaid proposition of law has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in M. M. Aqua Technologies Ltd. v. CIT [2021] 436 ITR…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, DELHI vs. ACB (INDIA) POWER LTD.

ITA - 331 / 2025HC Delhi22 Aug 2025

Section 14A

M/S PRAMOD TELECOM PVT.LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT/ACIT-3, LUCKNOW

In the result, in ITA. No

ITA 243/LKW/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Deepak Yadav, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. In order to emphasize the retrospective nature of these amendments, the ld. CIT(A) quoted from the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Poddar Cement Pvt. Ltd. and Ors (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC), the judgment in Keshavlal Jethalal Shah vs Mohanlal Bhagwandas & Anr (1968) 3 SCR 623 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT-1, Ahmedabad vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd., (2018) 9 SCC 622. He also quoted from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana (2004) 8 SCC 1 and th…

M/S PRAMOD TELECOM PVT.LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT/ACIT-3, LUCKNOW

In the result, in ITA. No

ITA 242/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Deepak Yadav, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

ALBERT JOSEPH ROZARIO,MUMBAI vs. ITO, INT. TAX, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1168/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2018-19 Albert Joseph Rozario, Ito, (Int. Tax), Circle-4(1)(1), B-311, 5Th Wing, Room No. 629, 6Th Floor, Inlaks Park, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Yari Road, Versova, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Andheri West, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400058 Bandra East, Pan : Afvpr6139P Mumbai-400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Dharan Gandhi For Revenue : Shri Sridhar G. Menon, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22-07-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 R/W 144C(13) Of The Act Dt. 30-12-2024, Consequent To The Directions Given By The Ld. Drp-1, Mumbai-3, U/S 144C(5) Of The Act, Dated 30-11-2024 Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay.) 2018-19. 2. Briefly The Facts Of The Case Are That Basis Information Available Through The Insight Portal That The Assessee Had Purchased Immoveable Properties Amounting To Rs. 8,31,45,549/- & Has Received Interest

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar G. Menon, Sr.DR

Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 56(2)(x)Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “I” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2018-19 Albert Joseph Rozario, ITO, (Int. Tax), Circle-4(1)(1), B-311, 5th Wing, Room No. 629, 6th Floor, Inlaks Park, vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Yari Road, Versova, C-41 to C-43, G Block, Andheri West, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400058 Bandra East, PAN : AFVPR6139P Mumbai-400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Dharan Gandhi For Revenue : Shri Sridhar G. Menon, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 01-05-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 22-07-2025 O R…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT, MEERUT vs. PREM SAPRA, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1739/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2021-22

Section 143(3)Section 54

…essee, "purchased" the share of each of his brothers and the assessee was, therefore, entitled to the relief under section 54(1). The question now is no longer res integra having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in CIT v. Podar Cement (P.) Ltd. [1997] 226 ITR 625. The Apex Court categorically held that section 22 of the Act does not require registration of sale deed. The meaning of the word 'owner' in the context of section 22 has been held to be a person who is entitled to receive income in his own right. The Apex Court in Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 239 ITR 7751 and this Court in CIT v. R.L. Sood…

ACIT-6(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA FINANCIAL SHARED SERVICES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed and Cross objections I and II of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3332/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Shri Urvish ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia (Sr.DR)

Section 143(3)Section 32

…r’ i.e., the person who actually bears the risks incidental to ownership and utilizes the capital asset for the purpose of its business. In support of this proposition, reliance was placed on certain judicial precedents in CIT v. Podar Cement (P.) Ltd. [1997] 226 ITR 625 (SC),Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 239 ITR 775 (SC)and Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. CIT [2001] 247 ITR 267 (SC).It is also submitted that the assessee is the real owner of the leased assets as it makes the choice of asset to be purchased, takes delivery of the asset, maintains and operates the assets, undertakes indemnity and bears the ris…

ACIT-6(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA FINANCIAL SHARED SERVICES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed and\nCross objections I and II of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3331/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2025AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 32

….e., the person who\nactually bears the risks incidental to ownership and utilizes the\ncapital asset for the purpose of its business. In support of this\nproposition, reliance was placed on certain judicial precedents in\nCIT v. Podar Cement (P.) Ltd. [1997] 226 ITR 625 (SC), Mysore\nMinerals Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 239 ITR 775 (SC)and Dalmia Cement\n(Bharat) Ltd. v. CIT [2001] 247 ITR 267 (SC).It is also submitted that\nthe assessee is the real owner of the leased assets as it makes the\nchoice of asset to be purchased, takes delivery of the asset,\nmaintains and operates the assets, undertakes indemnity and bears\n…

PRADEEP WIG,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 406/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

…red owner does not exploit its property, then it is its choice and not of the beneficial owner. In this context reliance can be placed on the following decisions:- (i) R B JodhamalKuthiala vs CIT (1971) 82 ITR 587 (SC) (ii) CIT vs Poddar Cement (P) Ltd (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC) (iii) New Cotton and Wool Pressing Factory 65 ITR 662 (Raj) 45. It can be further seen that the entire information about the investment in the overseas companies holding of properties by the overseas company in UK, purchased from its own capital received from the assessee and his family and bank loan borrowed from the HSBC Bank in UK and ot…

SMT. TEJAL KAUSHAL SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, 25(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3303/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Reepal Tralshawala

Section 143(2)Section 23Section 250Section 54

…said decision is cited herein under for the ease of reference: “10. Even when we look into the matter from another angle, facts remain that the assessee is the actual and constructive owner of the house. In CIT v. Podar Cement (P.) Ltd. [1997] 92 Taxman 541 / 226 ITR 625 (SC), the Supreme Court has also accepted the theory of constructive ownership. Moreover, Section 54F mandates that the house should be purchased by the assessee and it does not stipulate that the house should be purchased in the name of the assessee only. Here is a case where the house was purchased by the assessee and that too in his name and w…

ACIT, RANGE-I, LUCKNOW vs. M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

ITA 454/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…that the above clarificatory amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2021 applies to the issue in the instant appeal as well. Here, the reference is also drawn to the Hon'ble Supreme Court Decision in the case of CIT vs Poddar Cement Pvt Ltd & Others (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC). Dealing with the above amendment brought in by Finance Act, 1987, stated to be effective from 1 April, 1988, Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under: "....We have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that the amendment introduced by the Finance Bill, 1988 was declaratory/clarificatory in nature so far as it relates to Section 27(iii), (iiia) and…

M/S. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-I, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide I

ITA 357/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…the above clarificatory amendment\nbrought in by the Finance Act, 2021 applies to the issue in the instant appeal as\nwell.\n\nHere, the reference is also drawn to the Hon'ble Supreme Court Decision in\nthe case of CIT vs Poddar Cement Pvt Ltd & Others (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC).\nDealing with the above amendment brought in by Finance Act, 1987, stated to be\neffective from 1 April, 1988, Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:\n\n\"....We have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that the amendment\nintroduced by the Finance Bill, 1988 was declaratory/clarificatory in\nnature so far as it relates to Section 27(iii), (ii…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s Pokarna Limited

The appeals are dismissed

ITTA/273/2012HC Telangana18 Feb 2025

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 260A

…cer? 2. Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that the decision of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Bhopalam Commercial Complex and Industrial Ltd., reported in 262 ITR 517 and Decision of Apex Court in the case of Poddar Cement, 226 ITR 625 are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, when the decisions were directly on the issue in favour of the revenue and consequently recorded a perverse finding? 3. Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that the value of land sold for Rs.389.52 per sq. ft. in favour of the sister concern can…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. WELSPUN STEEL LIMITED, GUJARAT

Accordingly, Ground No.1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3862/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay NagpalFor Respondent: Dr.Kishor Dhule

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 250

…2022-23, and subsequent assessment years. In support of the aforesaid submissions, the Learned Departmental Representative placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of income tax Vs. Poddar Cement P Ltd : (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC) [laying emphasis on paragraph 42], Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad Vs. Gold Coin Health Foods P Ltd: (2008) 304 ITR 308 (SC) and Prakash Nath Khanna Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax: (2004) 266 ITR 1 (SC). On the basis of the aforesaid, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the order passed by the CIT(A) be set aside and add…

SADHANA NAYYAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 17(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1310/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250

…titled for depreciation on the said car. The assessee has referred following case law in support of his arguments:- a) Mysore Minerals Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax, [1999] 239 ITR 775 (SC). b) Commissioner of Income Tax V. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd., [1997] 226 ITR 625 (SC). c) Commissioner of Income Tax V. Mirza Ataullaha Baig, [1993] 202 ITR 291 (Bom-HC). 4 Sadhana Nayyar d) Commissioner of Income Tax V. Dilip Singh Sardar Singh Bagga, [1993] 201 ITR 995 (Bom-HC-Nag) e) CIT V. Aravali Fin Lease Ltd., [2012] 341 ITR 282(Guj-HC). f) CIT V. Basti Sugar Mills Ltd., [2002] 257 ITR 88 (Del-HC). g) Income Tax Offic…

ANIL BHARDWAJ,ZAMBIA vs. DCIT-ACIT-INT-TAX GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1250/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1250/Del/2024 (A.Y 2020-21) Anil Bhardwaj Dcit/Acit 5994, Benakale Road, P. O Vs. International Tax, Box No. 31776, Northmead, Office Of Acit-Dcit Int- Near Rhodes Park School, Tax, Gurgaon Lusaka-10101, Zambia, Ny (Respondent) Pan No. Anlpb2321F (Appellant)

For Appellant: Sh. Shailesh Kumar, CA

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 54Section 54F

…1 Anil Bhardwaj Zambia IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE Dr. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1250/DEL/2024 (A.Y 2020-21) Anil Bhardwaj DCIT/ACIT 5994, Benakale Road, P. O Vs. International Tax, Box No. 31776, Northmead, Office of ACIT-DCIT INT- Near Rhodes Park School, TAX, Gurgaon Lusaka-10101, Zambia, NY (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ANLPB2321F (APPELLANT) Assessee by : Sh. Shailesh Kumar, CA Department Sh. Vijay B Vasanta, CIT DR by: Date of Hearing 07.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement 29.08.2024 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.…

SRI KARPAGAVINAYAGAR EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST,PALANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee dismissed

ITA 263/CHNY/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.263/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sri Karpaga Vinayagar Educational Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Charitable Trust, 1, Thalayuthu, Exemptions Ward, Palani 624 618. Madurai. [Pan: Aagts7098L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Thulasi Ram, Advocate & Shri B.K. Gopilal, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.11.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Raised 10 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration Is Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer In Denying Exemption

For Appellant: Shri R. Thulasi Ram, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. CIT

Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(2)

…r Trust. e) All expenses in relation to the new car such as driver salary, fuel, maintenance/ repairs etc. are duly accounted for in the accounts of our trust. The assessee also cited the following case laws in its support, i) CIT v. Podar Cement P. Ltd. 1997 226 ITR 625 (SC) ii) CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. (2012) 341 ITR 467 (Del) iii) CIT v. Jawahar Kala Kendra (2014) 362 ITR 515 (Raj)” 7. On an examination of the above, it is clear that the car was purchased in the name of the managing trustee for the simple reason that it gave relief by way of lower road/life tax and insurance charges, by contending that ro…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TELSTRA SINGAPORE PTE LTD.

ITA/334/2022HC Delhi24 Jul 2024

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 9

…ITA 334/2022 & connected matters Page 1 of 149 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 17 May 2024 Judgment pronounced on: 24 July 2024 + ITA 334/2022 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Aseem Chawla, SSC with Ms. Monica Benjamin, JSC along with Ms. Pratishtha Chaudhary, Mr. Naveen Rohila, and Ms. Simran Jha, Advs. versus TELSTRA SINGAPORE PTE LTD. ..... Respondent Through…

Showing 1–20 of 244 · Page 1 of 13

...